State Street Bank Settles FX Custody Trading Suits

In 2009 a whistle blower filed a suit on behalf of CalPERS and CalSTRS, alleging hidden markups in the FX rates given to custody clients when they used the "standing instructions" custody method of FX trading. State Street has settled this suit, DOJ, SEC and DOL investigations, as well as a private client lawsuit relating to FX matters, totaling $530 million. In effect this wipes the slate clean for State Street relating to FX pricing matters.

The suits alleged that markups were hidden from clients, while certain custody clients were told by State Street that rates were based on interbank market rates. In the settlements State Street acknowledges that markups were taken.

While these issues are quite different than the more general FX benchmark manipulation and other related charges settled by numerous banks, Bank of New York and State Street, two major custody players, were hit with charges related to "standing instructions" pricing. These trades tend to be numerous, small "nuisance" trades that, however, could be quite profitable to the banks with large markups in price. Since the original suit was filed, custody banks have become more transparent, and now typically provide known fixed spreads to their clients on such trades.

DOJ Charges HSBC Traders with FX Front Running

In the DOJ's first charges against individuals in the FX market investigations of the last three years, HSBC's head of FX trading and a former colleague were charged with using inside information from a large forthcoming client trade to make an $8 million profit for the bank (and we assume thereby increasing their bonuses).

While many charges have been made and settled with the banks, here individuals are being charged, perhaps in response to claims that just as in the financial crisis, fines are levied but no individuals are held responsible. Earlier this week the Fed barred a UBS trader from the currency markets for life, due to participation in the FX currency benchmark rigging scandal. There may be a few more charges to come both in the US and Europe, for regulators to show that more than financial penalties against the banks will be levied in this and any future financial scandals.

Investigations of Electronic FX Trading Continue

Reuters reports that the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) investigation of several money center banks for FX rate manipulation on electronic trading platforms is continuing. They report that NYDFS has interviewed dozens of traders and executives at Barclay's, Deutche Bank and Credit Suisse among other banks (NYDFS has its strongest remit with foreign banks) over the past several months. Subpoenas have also been sent to BNP, Goldman Sachs and Societe Generale according to Reuters sources.

NYDFS has already been known to be investigating FX algorithms on these platforms at the banks to determine if there is an attempt by the banks to advantage themselves at their clients' expense during the time between a rate being posted and then being accepted by a client. The concern is that this period may be used to front run client orders or otherwise manipulate FX rates. Earlier bank settlements with regulators covered spot market trading, but NYDFS agreements particularly, did not cover electronic trading. The Department of justice is also investigating FX electronic trading.

No information is available on how these investigations will play out against the various banks involved. The fact that they continue and appear to have widened from initial reports limited to Barclay's and Deutche, may indicate that regulators have found potential issues worthy of investigation, but do not provide clues as to the outcome.

Citi says FX Fines 2,500 Times the Illicit Profits

Bloomberg reports that "Jamie Forese, head of the Citigroup Inc. unit that houses trading and investment banking, said fines the firm paid for rigging foreign-exchange markets dwarfed the amount generated by the illegal conduct. Revenue from the trades amounted to about $1 million, while Citigroup paid out $2.5 billion in fines and penalties, Forese estimated Wednesday at an investor conference in New York."

Among commentators, and regulators as well, there has been a question regarding whether the size of fines in recent settlements have been painful enough to cause banks to prevent further occurrences of misconduct. Some suggest yes, many no, but without knowing the profits generated by misconduct, it is a difficult question to answer.

If this represents Citi's answer to the discussion, we suggest that it is incomplete. While the article does not mention how the 1 million dollar gain was calculated, perhaps it was strictly based upon the specific trades uncovered in the investigations, such as the trades highlighted in the CFTC - Citi settlement. However, the settlement states that "From 2009 through 2012 (“Relevant Period”), Citibank, by and through certain of its
foreign exchange (“FX”) traders, at times sought to benefit its own trading positions or those of certain FX traders at other banks by attempting to manipulate and aiding and abetting certain traders at other banks in their attempts to manipulate certain FX benchmark rates." So the plea is to misconduct at the fixes for 4 years.

In the DOJ settlement Citi pleads to having "entered into and engaged in a conspiracy to fix, stabilize, maintain, increase or decrease the price of, and rig bids and offers for, the EUR/USD currency pair exchanged in the FX Spot Market by agreeing to eliminate competition in the purchase and sale of the EUR/USD currency pair in the United States and elsewhere. The defendant, through one of its EUR/USD traders, participated in the conspiracy from at least as early as December 2007 and continuing until at least January 2013." Here the plea is to manipulating the EUR/USD pair for a period of 5 years, but not limited to only the fixing of benchmark rates.

If 5 years of misconduct in EUR/USD (DOJ) or 4 years in various currencies at benchmark fixes (CFTC) only lead to a 1 million dollar gain, it would lead one to question how Citi made about $2 billion in revenue per year in FX during this period. Thus we question not only if the fine was truly 2,500 times the size of the misbehavior, but whether such misbehavior was limited to about one-hundredth of one percent of FX revenues ($1 million / $10 billion).

Fine for the FX Banks (Pun Intended)

The 5 banks (RBS, Barclays, JPMorgan, Citi and UBS) were fined about $5.7 billion and all but UBS plead guilty to criminal charges (UBS gets off because they were the first to provide information on the scandal to regulators). Although having the banks plead guilty to criminal charges makes the regulators appear to be tough (more than just fines), the truth is that much of that is just appearances, as the SEC has already provided the banks with waivers. These waivers will allow the banks to continue in lines of business for which a felony conviction would typically bar them, such as operating as a fiduciary, including managing client assets. With so many banks pleading guilty simultaneously, the sting to any individual bank is lessened. And as the negotiations continued, the banks added to their reserves for these fines so that there will not be large one-time hits to earnings.

Of course the fines are a lot of money, but overall we have little reason to expect much negative impact to these banks from either the fines or the criminal charges. Our hope is that after these many scandals the banks, saddled with additional regulations and compliance costs, and hopefully having learned a lesson, will concentrate on their ethics. As it relates to the London Fix which was the start of all this, most banks are now earning their profits by charging customers either a fee or a bid offer spread, a much more transparent and ethical model than collusion, and hopefully a hint of a new direction.

DOJ Trying to Delay FX Benchmark Fix Case

The court handling the FX benchmark antitrust case released a letter last week from the Department of Justice asking for a limited stay in the discovery phase of this case citing a grand jury investigation that is currently under way. After an initial six month stay the DOJ would then decide if a longer stay is required. The court gave both sides in the case until Friday to respond to the DOJ's request.

One would expect the plaintiffs view to be along the justice delayed is justice denied theme. The banks' position may not be as clear. Although delaying a case with a foreseen bad outcome may generally be preferable, they would also need to weigh how a quicker trial here might affect the DOJ's case, which apparently is against several bank employees involved with the fix. Different banks may have different views. An additional layer of complexity is due to additional reported probes by the DOJ into the FX practices of certain banks, including in FX structured products, and the affect on these from a delay.

Until discovery of bank documents and depositions of bank employees occurs, a more clear picture of the potential size of damages to the banks cannot be determined.

Report CFTC Finds Criminal Behavior in ISDAFIX Investigation

As we reported last week, the first lawsuit was filed in the ISDAFIX controversy.  This week Bloomberg states that the CFTC, which is limited to bringing civil cases, reported evidence of criminal behavior to the DOJ. The DOJ can then determine whether to pursue a criminal investigation.  Bloomberg bases the article on a person familiar with this matter.

The report alleges that ICAP, a broker with a central role in setting ISDAFIX through January 2014, accepted large numbers of trades from banks at the close, attempting to influence the fix.  This "banging the close" is similarly charged in FX benchmark cases.  In addition to these actual trades, banks also submitted rate quotes as part of the process of setting ISDAFIX.  The lawsuit last week alleged that identical quotes were submitted by multiple banks on most days, down to the thousandth of a basis point.

The ISDAFIX cases may have a better chance of reaching antitrust status, unlike the LIBOR case, due to the actual trades involved and the lack of reasons other than profit for banks entering into these ISDAFIX trades.

Regulatory Investigations of the FX Markets are Progressing

Bloomberg reports that the U.K.'s FCA is trying to speed up settlement talks with the banks by keeping the settlement narrowly focused.  The FCA is hoping for a settlement before year end, much earlier than previous reports.  The SFO in the UK has recently begun a criminal investigation and the director said that charges could come next year.  It is reported that the DOJ's investigation could bring charges and impose fines as early as this year.

The WSJ also reports that a number of banks are negotiating with the UK's FCA that any settlement will be announced at the same time for all of the banks.  This is an attempt to avoid the LIBOR scenario where each bank settlement was announced separately, bringing considerable bad publicity to each.  Perhaps a cross bank settlement would spread such publicity around and also draw attention to the misconduct being more of a market-wide problem rather than any bank being a bad apple.

New York's bank regulator, the Department of Financial Services, is negotiating with Barclay's and Deutsche Bank to install monitors at the two banks to investigate whether trades manipulated FX currency benchmark rates.  This was reported by the Wall Street Journal , but both banks declined comment.

All in all it sounds as if the regulators are attempting to fast track the investigations.  Earlier this year the FCA had mentioned 2015 as a goal and BAFIN in Germany had mentioned completion in 2018, hopefully. Speed will be helpful for all involved - the banks, regulators, and oh yes, market participants.  The discussions on changes to benchmarks is ongoing publicly, but no solution is perfect - longer windows of trading which seems to be a favorite, mitigates but does not eliminate the possibility of misconduct and a benchmark that is more of an average rate for the day is not what all market participants are looking for.

FSB Proposes FX Benchmark Changes; UK Opens Criminal FX Benchmark Investigation

The Financial Stability Board (coordinates national regulators and international standard setting bodies)  published suggested changes to FX benchmark calculations in the following areas:

• The calculation methodology of the WM/Reuters (WMR) benchmark rates;
• The publication of reference rates by central banks;
• Market infrastructure in relation to the execution of fix trades;
• The behaviour of market participants around the time of the major FX benchmarks (primarily the WMR 4pm London fix);
• Recommendations from a forthcoming IOSCO review of the WMR fixes.

These are open to comments and should entail great diversity as there is much disagreement on how to reduce the possibility of rate rigging in FX markets.

In the UK, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has opened a criminal investigation into possible fraud occurring in benchmark rate setting.  The US DOJ has been looking into criminal angles for quite some time,and last week we reported their offer of immunity to junior FX traders in exchange for information. The SFO has an ongoing investigation into LIBOR rigging as well.

US DOJ Offers Immunity to Junior FX Traders in London

Reuters reports this interesting tactic which is not available to prosecutors in civil cases.  One can infer from this that the investigation into FX benchmark rigging has not made enough progress to bring any suits, but that the prosecutors believe that misconduct has occurred.  Will these offers of immunity bring in the information on senior traders and bank practices that the DOJ is looking for? Although that is uncertain, it will certainly make for some uneasy relationships within the FX trading community.

DOJ probes bank sales practices in forex market

Bloomberg reports:

"Former employees interviewed by Bloomberg News said sales teams at Zurich-based UBS AG (UBSN) and London-based Barclays Plc (BARC) were aware of which companies were considered unsophisticated about currency trades and charged them more."

According to Bloomberg even investment banks like Goldman Sachs are now being caught up in these investigations.

A bank client would surely find these types of actions, if true, to be outrageous. But is it illegal for a bank to charge an unsophisticated corporate client more for the same service?  Banks do it to people.  For example, most unsophisticated consumers (and presumably ones most needing protection) are the ones most reliant on predatory bank products like payday loans or subprime mortgages. As Mitt Romney said, "corporations are people too, my friend," don't unsophisticated corporations have the right to be ripped off just like flesh and blood people?  

Goldman and Bain settle antitrust suit against private equity

NYT Dealbook reports that Bain Capital and Goldman's private equity division have settled an antitrust suit, breaking ranks with the other private equity defendants. The allegations involve PE firms essentially colluding on the price they were willing to pay for target companies, thereby denying shareholders of potentially higher takeover bids.

I haven't heard much about this suit before the settlement. Have any incriminating documents come to light to trigger the settlement?  Where is the DOJ?